He boats the deletion of pages like "William Rodriguez" which documents the life, work and views of the 9/11 hero, William Rodriguez. By Mortons admission: this individuals page has been deleted simply because his account of events inside the twin towers on 9/11 do not meet with Morton's views.

In addition, Morton has deleted or vandalised countless pages documenting republican sleaze and 9/11 related documentaries. His only reason being a self confessed dislike for the facts these documentaries and articles include.

This user is clearly operating well beyond the bounds of Wikipedia’s guidelines and his profile page boasts about this abuse without shame. The message he is sending out is profoundly unhealthy for Wikipedia and anathema to the free exchange of information on the internet. I hope you can find a way to deal with this unpleasant abuse, and return the pages Morton has defaced to their former states.

_________________"Thought is faster than arrows, and truth is sharper than blades." - David Gemmell | RealityDown wiki

as he has been and continues to delete and edit pages against Wikipedia policy and with a clear political bias. I'm writing to demand that his administration privileges be removed immediately.

As you can see on his page, he is proud of the deletions of very valid stories that he has made.

This hurts the Wikipedia Encylopedia in many ways.

If you continue to allow rogue members like Morton Devonshire to continue to delete and remove solid and sound informational posts containing corroborated fact, the reputation of Wikipedia will inevitably plummet.

Secondly, it hurts your readers. No longer can we be guaranteed access to information that once maintained credible standards on Wikipedia.

I reccommend eliminating the deletion process or at the very least changing the process to disallow one or two or even a small group of people to be able to remove and delete postings.

The concept of Wikipedia is excellent... open source info on all topics. The internet moves so fast, that this could well be one of the greatest informational assets that the internet has.

Are you going to let that legacy be destroyed by people who harbor rogue agendas to solid and sound information - e.g., the Republican Sex Scandal etc.

This user is clearly abusing his powers and it's up to you to investigate the matter and reinstate the pages upon pages of information, from archives, that this user and his fellow visigoths have been responsible for deleting.

I urge you to ban this and every other malevolent user, and also reinstate the volumes of data. Help restore Wikipedia's credibility amongst the online community.

MONGO, Morton, Tim Beatty/Tbeatty (contact Intel, ask why one of their scientists is editing on behalf of the US government on their private Intel payroll!), and Tom Harrison are the worst of the worst.

Another is Arthur Rubin, who edit as "Arthur Rubin" and has his own Wikipedia article too:

Just had this rather unsatisfactory reply to my own complaint e-mail as follows:

"Morton Devonshire is not an administrator - and has thus deleted nothing. Deletion is carried out by a community consensus process.

Further, if you have any problems with a wiki user the appropriate venue to take them up is on-wiki, not by mounting a campaign to bombard a volunteer run support service.

Yours sincerely,
Brian McNeil"

Have replied:

"Dear Mr McNeil,

I am rather surprised at your attitude regarding this very serious problem. It is clear that you have not even looked into this issue properly.

And I also take offence that I am "bombard[ing] a volunteer run support service". Indeed, I had no idea it was being run by volunteers, although, volunteer or not, this does not excuse the fact that young mischief makers on your forums are managing to either delete or get deleted important information which should available to the public. Indeed, your comments have just derogated Wiki in my own eyes, as I used to think very highly of it, and had not realised just how easy it was for certain people to get facts and information altered or deleted.

I have no idea what an "appropriate venue" is, and can only register my complaint to the administrators of Wiki, be they volunteers or not.

Maybe you should mention Hitler had a spate of going round Burning Books

Quote:

Regarding 9/11 I'd like to point out that it is the duty of the Thought Police to delete infomation deemed unfit by the state in Orwells 1984 and that also it is well documented that our beloved Adolf Hitler had a frenzy of Book Burnings! Don't overstep the boundaries of freedom, if indeed this service is not state run!

Yours in Liberty
Aron Dawson

_________________'Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!'

“The more you tighten your grip, the more Star Systems will slip through your fingers.”

I am new to using Wikipedia - esp in regards to how wikipedia works, if I did something wrong I need to be told what exactly I did wrong - rather than have some abusive name rubber stamped over my account - VANDALISM - with a block on further use. If that is your way of responding to people who missuse wikipedia out of a lack of knowledge on how it works, then very soon no one other that a small bunch of wiki literate users will bother logging in!

I was looking at the profile for Morton Devonshire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Morton_devonshire who has been posting extremist Point of View comments on Wikipedia, while endeavouring to delete entries that others have worked hard to create, claiming their deletion for exactly the same reason.

These deletions are not Point of View articles, they are factual entries backed up by citations, links and well researched references that can be readily backed up and are in the process of being backed up.

On his profile page Morton Devonshire has posted pictures of people wearing tin foil hats and proudly lists the number of websites he has deleted and is endeavouring to delete which are - strangely enough not on a wide variety of subjects but based on the US Truth Movement. His profile reads like a poke in the face of anyone who has had their content deleted by him. That should not be tollerated by any institution that wishes to create a respectable image of itself to the public.

Posting pictures of people wearing tin foil hats may be amusing to a few sad minded individuals but to others it is extremely insulting, especially as the people who are being poked fun of are only interested in the truth - something others wish to close their eyes and minds to. It reminds me of the time when segragationists would poke fun of black people and hang golly wogs in their windows as a display of their political views regaring integration! Different subject maybe but similar kind of reaction. "I don't agree with you but rather than debate the facts, I am just going to call you mad!" - "I don't agree with your rights so rather than debate with you I'm just going to remind you of why you don't have any!"

I choose to edit the Point of View content on Devonshire’s page, which I seemed to be free to do and I did so believing it would be part of a process of reviewing his page and the highlighting the inflammatory content he has posted there, rather than be regarded as vandalism.

John, posted a warning on my Talk Page and a couple of seconds later a ban. Surely you can not post a warning and a ban within seconds of each other - that is an abuse in itself!

I have no interest in vandalism or abusing wikipedia. All I wanted to do was highlight the abuse of Morton Devonshire in his deletion of wikipedia content. I am very concerned at the growing use of censorship and the main stream Medias ability to ignore inconvenient issues. I believed wikipedia would be different. It is why most people use the alternative media as it is a many to many rather than a one to many medium. Please help keep it that way.

I appologise if what I did was an abuse. Again I believed I was embarking of raising a review of Devonshires Wikipedia Profile, especially as he is being held up as some kind of award wining wiki content editor. When clearly he is just an arogant person who wishes to inflame other users and delete content he prefers to close his mind to.

Well put, I'm glad you are on wikipedia taking on this information battle.

I don't have the time to engage these morons. I can't stand wikipedia or its self-righteous self-appointed editors/administrators. I do leave comments on Digg and Reddit regularly though. But sometimes I see my entire evening slip by leaving comments and I think don't have any time to sort out other things. It's really time consuming but I suppose every little helps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------

Is Wikipedia subject to "Information Operations In Support of Special Operations"?
08/20/2006

An article by Professor James Fetezer (co-founder of 9-11 Scholars for truth ,http://www.st911.org) titled "Wikipedia: What it Doesn't Say about Scholars for 9/11 Truth" http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ArticlesWikipedia.html makes interested reading and is thought provoking considering the treatment of the 9/11 truth movement by Wikipedia, or the unseen hands and minds which control it. Wikipedia claims to be a non-biased searchable knowledge base, a "wiki", that is essentially a website that allows users to easily add, remove, edit available content. Wikipedia is a tremendous source of factual information, however we must always question the information and validate information independently of Wikipedia. If the general public feel that Wikipedia is a great source of "factual" information, you can be assured that the government has also realised and acted on this. If "REBUILDING AMERICA’S DEFENSES - Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century" ( http://www.reopen911.org/docs/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf ) is to be taken as a terms-of-reference for all that has transpired since September 11th 2001, then surely the statement "The Internet is also playing an increasingly important role in warfare and human political conflict" (page 69), needs to be taken as seriously as the often quoted "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor" (page 63).

Documents published by the Pentagons inner cabal of warfare planners such as "Information Operations In Support of Special Operations" by Lieutenant Colonel Bradley Bloom, U.S. Army Informations Operations Officer, Special Operations Command Joint Forces Command, MacDill Air Force Base, Florida must be taken seriously. The content is unambiguous - it reads simply "information warfare". ( http://www.iwar.org.uk/iwar/resources/milrev/bloom.pdf )

Professor Fetzer states that after entering an article describing the Scholars for Truth organization on wikipedia, it was immediately edited. The editing made the article read as not intended, or questioned the very validity of the work done by 'scholars for truth'. Further a statement which questioned the neutrality and validity of the article was posted as a bold heading, at the top of the article. This forced Professor Fetzer to post the article "Wikipedia: What it Doesn't Say about Scholars for 9/11 Truth" on the scholars for truth website. The kind of categorical heading statements that appeared on the article such as "The neutrality or validity of this article is disputed" will create doubt in the minds of casual or as yet undecided readers.

The article on the Loose Change video, is a case in point of "Information Operations In Support of Special Operations" and is nothing more than an all out hit-piece. Simply the Loose Change article on Wikipedia is an attack on the documentary via the regurgitation of the Popular Mechanics mythology. Recently I noticed that edits made to the article so that there was an inclusion of the seminal research paper by Professor Steve Jones describing the mechanism of the collapse of the twin towers and building seven, were very quickly removed. The article initially didn't mention the February 13th 1975 fire that broke out in the North Tower on the 11th floor. An edit was made to the article to correct this, obviously stating the truth about this fire. However this edit was quickly "corrected" to make this raging inferno of 1975 sound like a barbecue that distorted the steel trusses. However no mention is made of the lack of a sprinkler system in 1975 or the fact that none of the effected trusses were replaced as a result of that fire.

All 9/11 Truth related material on Wikipedia must be treated with extreme caution, and it then follows that any articles that are published by this movement on Wikipedia will be unfairly edited and are beyond the control of the truth movement.

In conclusion, this is the government that feels it necessary to spend $1.3 billion ($1300,000,000) on false news articles, false blogs, false comments on blogs, false letters to the editor, false comments to news stories on news websites, false radio talk shows, false calls to radio talk shows, false calls to television shows, false television documentaries, false scientific & false engineering reports etc. From experiences of various 9/11 truth seekers in respect to Wikipedia we must assume that "Information Operations In Support of Special Operations", extend to Wikipedia.

During the last year I've been harrassed by an internet troll. I met him on a forum and we had a long chat. It was obvious from the start that we disagreed on almost everything, but we had a civilized debate. But when I tried to end the discussion, he became rude and abusive. He started making comments about my personal life. The mods banned him, but he just came back and started on me under another username.

I've found that the best defense is to put him on my ignore list. As soon as I identify him now I do that immediately. If I can't read what he says then he can't hurt me.

I think these militant Skeptics must know deep down that we "CT-ers" have a point. If they didn't then there'd be no need to try and supress us so violently. Actually their doing us a favour because they're a very poor advertisement for the Skeptic Movement!

NOTE: This is being reposted because the orginal disapeared off the forum. I got a message warning me not to start new topics on old subjects.

I have not seen the "old" topic, it is a very large forum with lots of topics on and I am sorry I'm new to using it and I have NOT got the time to search all the topics. I have looked, I have run searches but found nothing.

I replied to the message asking where the post had gone because I ran searches on my user id and also the subject line but could not find the post. I posted to several of the moderators too, in a couple of cases several times but have still not received a reply.

I am against censorship in whatever form it appears. I agree with a decent level of forum etiquette but reading this forum it seems pretty laid back, which surely is how things should be. What is the problem with my post?

Post copied below (I keep copies of all my posts - I will not be silenced and have my MULTIPLE enquiries ignored for no reason)... If this post is such a problem BAN ME!

Here is my response to my block for "vandalism" in response to this
chav moron (who looks like someone who has just had his brain removed
or maybe hes just been smoking pot all night!) - http://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Morton_devonshire who has been responsible
for deleting pages on wikipedia relating to 911 Truth!

I am new to using Wikipedia - esp in regards to how wikipedia works,
if I did something wrong I need to be told what exactly I did wrong -
rather than have some abusive name rubber stamped over my account -
VANDALISM - with a block on further use. If that is your way of
responding to people who missuse wikipedia out of a lack of knowledge
on how it works, then very soon no one other that a small bunch of
wiki literate users will bother logging in!

I was looking at the profile for Morton Devonshire http://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Morton_devonshire who has been posting
extremist Point of View comments on Wikipedia, while endeavouring to
delete entries that others have worked hard to create, claiming their
deletion for exactly the same reason.

These deletions are not Point of View articles, they are factual
entries backed up by citations, links and well researched references
that can be readily backed up and are in the process of being backed
up.

On his profile page Morton Devonshire has posted pictures of people
wearing tin foil hats and proudly lists the number of websites he has
deleted and is endeavouring to delete which are - strangely enough
not on a wide variety of subjects but based on the US Truth
Movement. His profile reads like a poke in the face of anyone who
has had their content deleted by him. That should not be tollerated
by any institution that wishes to create a respectable image of
itself to the public.

Posting pictures of people wearing tin foil hats may be amusing to a
few sad minded individuals but to others it is extremely insulting,
especially as the people who are bing poked fun of are only
interested in the truth - something others wish to close their eyes
and minds to. It reminds me of the time when segragationists would
poke fun of black people and hand golly wogs in their windows as a
display of their political views regaring integration! Different
subject maybe but similar kind of reaction. "I don't agree with you
but rather than debate the facts, I am just going to call you mad!"
- "I don't agree with your rights so rather than debate with you I'm
just going to remind you of why you don't have any!"

I choose to edit the Point of View content on Devonshire's page,
which I seemed to be free to do and I did so believing it would be
part of a process of reviewing his page and the highlighting the
inflammatory content he has posted there, rather than be regarded as
vandalism.

John, posted a warning on my Talk Page and a couple of seconds later
a ban. Surely you can not post a warning and a ban within seconds of
each other - that is an abuse in itself!

I have no interest in vandalism or abusing wikipedia. All I wanted
to do was highlight the abuse of Morton Devonshire in his deletion of
wikipedia content. I am very concerned at the growing use of
censorship and the main stream Medias ability to ignore inconvenient
issues. I believed wikipedia would be different. It is why most
people use the alternative media as it is a many to many rather than
a one to many medium. Please help keep it that way.

I appologise if what I did was an abuse. Again I believed I was
embarking of raising a review of Devonshires Wikipedia Profile,
especially as he is being held up as some kind of award wining wiki
content editor. When clearly he is just an arogant person who wishes
to inflame other users and delete content he prefers to close his
mind to.

Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 6:19 am Post subject: So much for your War on Wikipedia -- you lost

If Google didn't index Wikipedia pages and list them first, Wikipedia would just be a playground for the terminally bored. Nonetheless, Google does what it does, and that makes Wikipedia somewhat important, and therefore a place that propagandists use to try to promote their pet theories.

Fortunately, Wikipedia has rules against using the encyclopedia as a soapbox. That's why your conspiracy theory articles get deleted, because it's just made up garbage supported by the thinnest of citations, almost exclusively to citations to the blogosphere or to conspiracy advocacy sites like Prisonplanet.com. Wikipedia requires citation to reputable sources, and the neutral presentation of verifiable facts. Since 9/11 conspiracy theories and articles about these theories cannot be supported by reputable objective sources, the articles violate Wikipedia rules, and thus merit deletion. So much for DisInfoWars -- the articles just violate Wikipedia rules. It's as simple as that, and nothing you are doing in your vaunted "War on Disinformation Trolls" is going to change that.

Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 6:28 am Post subject: Re: So much for your War on Wikipedia -- you lost

Morton_devonshire wrote:

If Google didn't index Wikipedia pages and list them first, Wikipedia would just be a playground for the terminally bored. Nonetheless, Google does what it does, and that makes Wikipedia somewhat important, and therefore a place that propagandists use to try to promote their pet theories.

Fortunately, Wikipedia has rules against using the encyclopedia as a soapbox. That's why your conspiracy theory articles get deleted, because it's just made up garbage supported by the thinnest of citations, almost exclusively to citations to the blogosphere or to conspiracy advocacy sites like Prisonplanet.com. Wikipedia requires citation to reputable sources, and the neutral presentation of verifiable facts. Since 9/11 conspiracy theories and articles about these theories cannot be supported by reputable objective sources, the articles violate Wikipedia rules, and thus merit deletion. So much for DisInfoWars -- the articles just violate Wikipedia rules. It's as simple as that, and nothing you are doing in your vaunted "War on Disinformation Trolls" is going to change that.

why not explain what you'd accept or wikipedia accepts as a 'reputable objective source'. please explain.

If you go onto Wikipedia, look for the following rules: WP:RS and WP:Verify -- those are the basic rules outlining reliable sources and verifiable information. In short, reliable sources are sources that employ objective editorial oversight.

And how, exactly, does one determine if a source employs this? It would seem this would invalidate newspapers as ever being appropriate as a source for a start._________________It's a man's life in MOSSAD

If you go onto Wikipedia, look for the following rules: WP:RS and WP:Verify -- those are the basic rules outlining reliable sources and verifiable information. In short, reliable sources are sources that employ objective editorial oversight.

still very vauge and i don't use wikipedia to know what part of the site or where to look, it may make sense to others though.

i take it by 'ojective editorial oversight' they mean mainstream sources, and verifiable information but verifiable by whom?

it just sounds to me like if it aint in the mainstream news it cannot be true so therefore not to be considered by wiki or morton, even though there are sources out their that confirm some of the reports etc. i had no idea for example that the exsistance of genesis radio had to be verifiable by mainstream sources or else it don't exsist, even though it does and can be proved so.

lets face it,your talking rubbish and you just delete anything you don't believe in regardless of sources and evidence. its a good denial mechanism for you, or you are paid to do so.

now im not going to pretend some of what you deleted can be proven eitherway, but there is a good deal of information that can and are back up by goverment documents etc as well as the things you mention, so i don't think you are using wiki's rules for your selection, but rather anything YOU don't believe or is bad press for the bush administration or are paid to ditch.

Fortunately, Wikipedia has rules against using the encyclopedia as a soapbox. That's why your conspiracy theory articles get deleted, because it's just made up garbage supported by the thinnest of citations, almost exclusively to citations to the blogosphere or to conspiracy advocacy sites like Prisonplanet.com. Wikipedia requires citation to reputable sources, and the neutral presentation of verifiable facts. Since 9/11 conspiracy theories and articles about these theories cannot be supported by reputable objective sources, the articles violate Wikipedia rules, and thus merit deletion.

If you go to Wikipedia, you will find pages on Aliens, the Moonlanding hoax theories, Holocaust revisionism and modern day angels, vampire and dragon sightings. These are not censored because Wikipedia is not there just for skeptics. How can anyone therfore justify censoring 9/11 "conspiracy theories"? Some pages are prominently flagged if they start sounding like a soapbox with the words "the neutrality of this article is diputed". With every conspiracy page, a page debuning it is included in the "See also" column. This is so everyone can hear both sides of the story and make up their own mind. This is the only editing that needs to be done. All humans have brains, you know. We all have the right to use it.

Don't you want people to make up their own minds, Morton? If we "9/11 Deiniers" are so full of nonsense then what have you got to worry about? I'm syre everyone will reject us once they've been fully informed... won't they?" _________________"Lynda, you're sweet. From what I've seen of your world, do you think anybody votes for sweet?"
Doctor Who- Bad Wolf

"Because he refused to compete in games of domination he was indomitable"
from The Dispossessed by Ursula Le Guin

Anyone with more than TWO brain cells who has bothered to look into the events of Sept 11th realises that what they are being told by the US government is a bucket of ****.

Now if you have the balls Moron, please contact me with your phone number and we'll get together and I'll knock some sence into your weak cowardly empty chav-pot head skull but I doubt you have any balls.

While the link is from what I consider to be a propaganda site therefore not to be treated as seriously as a source with multiple references*

Quote:

James Wales History

Wales who was born in Huntsville, Alabama, went to the exclusive Randolph prep school, and onto the University of Alabama. Wales graduates, and becomes a Futures Trader in Chicago. Next he opens Bomis, an 'Adult Content' website, which is followed by Nupedia, which morphs into Wikipedia.

Above cited as fact. Below conjecture.

Quote:

From all the available information, it appears Wikipedia was started by a two Jewish kids, one a programmer, and the other an 'Adult Site' operator. It's dynamic success (800,000 pages) stems from 10,000 + individual contributors, which are monitored by core sayanims.

Wikipedia's claim: ~ 'We are an internet encyclopedia with a neutral stance' ~ is absurd.

This project is an attempt to control student research on the Internet. Any subject Googled will show Wikipedia as one of the first entries. Type in the word Bolshevik, and the first entry is Wikipedia. Explore their version, and you won't be the slightest mention that the movement was a Jewish instigated bloodbath, that was responsible for 20,000,000 deaths.

*sources can appear credible and be otherwise. IMO the best way to check the chances of something being true is

1) Does it fit what you KNOW (not have READ) is true.
2) Does it make SENSE

In this way 911 (raison d'etre of this site) was a fantastic opportunity to open the can of worms. Logic goes like this - WTC had to be demolished (pure physics of the collapses). Media covers this up. Therefore media and perpetrators are working for the same team. Ownership of the media is public record. From this simple logical deduction the scales are blown away - unless of course you are intimidated by cries of 'anti-semitism'_________________Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com

Below are a couple of responses I've had on a gaming forum in the US, don't get me wrong here they are great guys but a little clouded of vision.
To cut a long story short I saw some stuff either here or Myspace where 911/Truth was targeted with disinfo and censorship on Wiki, can everyone in the know back it up with proof??
Oh the argument stems from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad 'Wiping Isreal' off the map speech, again if anyone has links and proof to this being taken out of context please post details too!
I provide the link for view only please no hostility I have a lot of respect for most of these people and play games regularly

Wiki is more credible than the general population thinks. They allow editing, but if any information is altered on the page it's posted on the top and bottom of that page that content has been altered until they review it and allow the change.

I'm sure the General Population thinks Wiki as a reasonable source of info, but hay 2+2=5 and so on. Iran would never be in a position to threaten anyone just as Iraq wasn't and North Korea isn't
You maybe right now be thinking I'm pretty dumb or something, but you will never be the guardians of my Freedom because the Guardians of my Freedom will never Taser someone for asking a question or stating a point of view. Remember that when you carry your torch of war into the night!!! Good luck and peace!

Quote:

They talk a lot of smack about isreal, but they're full aware that if they so much as press the wrong button. Isreal will not hesitate to march into their country and shoot anything that moves and destroy their entire production facilities. Then go home and watch them rebuild.

Funny that I thought Lebanon was a Retailiation to a Hostage crisis, fuelled by the ongoing illegal detention of Lebanese Citizens.
All depends which news you see I guess?
On another note nothing 'Pretty Good' comes of war unless like Bush & co. you are the Engineers, and even that oftern results in a bloody end, ask Hitler or Napoleon, they tried and died._________________'Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!'

“The more you tighten your grip, the more Star Systems will slip through your fingers.”

It came out here on the major media that the CIA was doing it regularly . They have been doing it for a while to so watch out for Wikipedia as any kind of reliable reference.
Actually I talked about it a month before they talked about if with Zeitgeist.
Their teams stopped reference to the Zeitgeist movie, They refused to post an accurate statement by the producer. It is throughly I infected with these operatives. I told everyone about what they did in my posts.
_________________NOW THAT MEN ARE ACTING, EVIL WILL FLEE.

Um it was proof I was after but yea I guess persistance might win through on these stubborn gamers, then again _________________'Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!'

“The more you tighten your grip, the more Star Systems will slip through your fingers.”

It is funny how they bring it up but don't mentionIi said something about it first. As yet I don't copy write because the word getting out is more important but would like just a few initials at the end so to speak.
There have been others including Alex Jones. it was a while ago.
I bring it up and everyone else claims ownership.
Oh well they say every dog has his day, I hope it is soon! _________________NOW THAT MEN ARE ACTING, EVIL WILL FLEE.

Cheers Check, looks like I failed Forum locked and given the response (I admit I may have been a little heavy handed) we're doomed these people can't see past the end of their noses _________________'Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!'

“The more you tighten your grip, the more Star Systems will slip through your fingers.”

Gobbels wannabe Devonshire is just another nail in the coffin of Wikipedia's credibility.

Let's assume for a moment the position of a 100% critic of trutherism. How does that justify purging wikipedia of entries concerned with it? Challenging bias - on either side - I can understand, but adopting 'reality control' concerning individuals and what they say is simply purging 'improper thoughts', the online equivalent of Nazi book burning. He wants to delete the entry for Michel Chossudovsky? Try reaching his intellectual standard first, moron. It's like me trying to argue references to Holocaust denial should be purged. It's there. It exists. You can't pretend it doesn't because you don't agree with it. I personally don't like Chris Bollyn, but I'm aghast some chimp with a keyboard can make like he's an unperson.

It's not so much Devonshire - there's a bigot born every minute - it's that Wiki lets the little * get away with it._________________It's a man's life in MOSSAD

Gobbels wannabe Devonshire is just another nail in the coffin of Wikipedia's credibility.

Let's assume for a moment the position of a 100% critic of trutherism. How does that justify purging wikipedia of entries concerned with it? Challenging bias - on either side - I can understand, but adopting 'reality control' concerning individuals and what they say is simply purging 'improper thoughts', the online equivalent of Nazi book burning. He wants to delete the entry for Michel Chossudovsky? Try reaching his intellectual standard first, moron. It's like me trying to argue references to Holocaust denial should be purged. It's there. It exists. You can't pretend it doesn't because you don't agree with it. I personally don't like Chris Bollyn, but I'm aghast some chimp with a keyboard can make like he's an unperson.

It's not so much Devonshire - there's a bigot born every minute - it's that Wiki lets the little * get away with it.

That was pretty much my position in one of the threads I mentioned; that far from impeding 911 Truth (to give it a name) all MD and his crew had actually succeeded in doing was degrading Wikipedia's reputation for reliability._________________Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.

........One Jerusalem-based Wikipedia editor, who doesn't want to be named, said that publicising the initiative might not be such a good idea. "Going public in the past has had a bad effect," she says. "There is a war going on and unfortunately the way to fight it has to be underground."

In 2008, members of the hawkish pro-Israel watchdog Camera who secretly planned to edit Wikipedia were banned from the site by administrators.

Meanwhile, Yesha is building an information taskforce to engage with new media, by posting to sites such as Facebook and YouTube, and claims to have 12,000 active members, with up to 100 more signing up each month. "It turns out there is quite a thirst for this activity," says Bennett. "The Israeli public is frustrated with the way it is portrayed abroad."

The organisiers of the Wikipedia courses, are already planning a competition to find the "Best Zionist editor", with a prize of a hot-air balloon trip over Israel.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou can download files in this forum